And then there was ONE
Wow, since my five year old sparked somewhat of a comment overload on the last topic (Well done Sam - I said he'd provoke more response than a long sermon didn't I - and that's a fact!) I thought I might open up a fresh canvas for opinion.
I think what happened there with Phil's bringing up the topics of Evolution, Big Bang and alien invasion theories was that we were able to clear out and quash the odd misconception that these theories in some way explain the beginning of life in the universe. Although the misinformed (sometimes even self confessed) may cling on to this, it's clear from today's evidence that this is not what any of these theories do. Sometimes this is obvious (as with the alien invasion) and sometimes it takes a little bit more digging until the dead end is reached.
The key hypothesis since the beginning of time has been of course that God created. And that hypothesis, although tested to the limit, has never been overturned. Unlike all of its counterparts which as we have seen with these two or three, examples, soon wilt under the pressure of critique - only God's strength can withold this. ("Come to me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest" "Lift me up and I will draw all men to myself")
This is before we even start to mention any of the confidences we see in God working in our lives. What a painful punishment it was when God disallowed Adam from walking with him in the garden and sent him out into a cursed world.
Want to know why you can't see, hear and touch God today? Best ask Adam. The good news is that you can. But until you really want to, you will have to live by the sweat of your brow and your plants will not grow easily.
"Thou shalt not test the Lord your God!"
(But when we do, he is never found wanting)
PS - I am going to politely brush over Phil's accusations that it was I that was changing the subject, poor old guy must have forgotten that these somewhat random theories came from his own good keyboard.
I think what happened there with Phil's bringing up the topics of Evolution, Big Bang and alien invasion theories was that we were able to clear out and quash the odd misconception that these theories in some way explain the beginning of life in the universe. Although the misinformed (sometimes even self confessed) may cling on to this, it's clear from today's evidence that this is not what any of these theories do. Sometimes this is obvious (as with the alien invasion) and sometimes it takes a little bit more digging until the dead end is reached.
The key hypothesis since the beginning of time has been of course that God created. And that hypothesis, although tested to the limit, has never been overturned. Unlike all of its counterparts which as we have seen with these two or three, examples, soon wilt under the pressure of critique - only God's strength can withold this. ("Come to me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest" "Lift me up and I will draw all men to myself")
This is before we even start to mention any of the confidences we see in God working in our lives. What a painful punishment it was when God disallowed Adam from walking with him in the garden and sent him out into a cursed world.
Want to know why you can't see, hear and touch God today? Best ask Adam. The good news is that you can. But until you really want to, you will have to live by the sweat of your brow and your plants will not grow easily.
"Thou shalt not test the Lord your God!"
(But when we do, he is never found wanting)
PS - I am going to politely brush over Phil's accusations that it was I that was changing the subject, poor old guy must have forgotten that these somewhat random theories came from his own good keyboard.
posted by Evo1 at 10:03 AM
39 Comments:
another riddle, come on evo prove to me in english please how you can prove god created life, still havent answered the question, evading it really well. lucy you still havent answered the question how did god save your life, evading that too. w edont need sermons or passages from the bible, this is a book written by mortals, come on convert me, give me evidence.
In the same way that it has taken me about 5 minutes to systematically shoot down all "theories" which you put forward for explaining the origin of life, you will note that people have been attempting to do this to God for thousands of years.
Read for yourself, in 5 minutes I have had you running for the hills rather than defend your own position but God stands firm for ever!
If you can't look around you and see solid proof of God, that it your issue. I can - before we even get anywhere near faith.
It matters not who believes or not whether God exists, the fact of the matter is, this whole universe would not be viable without him. Something which phycisists are rapidly concluding - though in the most, they are having to be dragged kicking and screaming.
That there is a God - there can be no question of that one - as St Paul documented (and I have to repeat, perhaps you missed it the first time) "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - Romans 1:20
The fact that he loves me and has saved me by the saving work of his Son (not men, but God himself to clarify the inequality with your good work being done by men - but no doubt you won't see that) - that is a matter of faith.
I doubt you will get that though.
I'm disappointed that you seem to have run down a lot of rabbit holes, not acknowledging when you come to a dead end but choosing to look for the next chink of light. No one learns anything with that attitude. As you have already said on many occasions, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about - yet still you choose to reason with someone who does - that's the definition of sin in a nutshell.
Repent and believe the good news!
so you showed that god existed by repeated words that someone had written!!!!!i have said before i dont want evidence from the bible i want you to give me solid evidence that you have to offer, more riddles. please come on tell me what you have seen with your own eyes, not your soul, not your mind, not your belief. but give me solid bona fide evidence, like ive said time and time again, it cant be done, you have now dipped to the level of putting passaged from the bible on here as proof but the bible is a book that was written by mortals, it isnrt proof.
I think you better read what I said again, I didn't show it by what St Paul said, I showed it by what everyone can see, simply quoting Paul where he agrees with me.
There is no more need to go on any further if you can't follow a simple logical argument. If you want to move on intellectually and be able to say to the next person you speak to, "actually I do know something about this" instead of proudly blurting out that you know nothing but here's your advice anyway, just give it a try. Otherwise, you could always get a job as a London taxi driver.
I'm getting a little tired of your moaning about riddles. If you can't follow what I'm saying, then just ask me to explain a little more for you. I do have difficulty toning it down. I will try harder to reach your level - I don't normally have this problem.
Does a baby have sin? That depends on what you mean by sin. It's unlikely that they would have done over a sweet shop or slept with another man's wife (unless you count their mum (not a riddle, just a joke)) but that isn't what sin is.
This goes right back to the beginning and it's a choice Adam made for all men - to turn away from God. To repent is to turn back to be looking in God's direction.
The word "sin" is an old fashioned archery term which actually means "to miss the mark". Perhaps you might understand it easier by considering that even just before the arrow has been released, if it is not on target, it will not hit the bullseye.
If you believe that it is only entirely external factors which caused Gareth to subsequently sin, then I see your point but that would be a bold statement to make wouldn't it.
Now putting aside all the playful banter we have been having, it would be good to talk about these things seriously. I don't mind doing my best - and contrary to how I might sound, I do know that I do not know everything and I can only do my best but hopefully that is a better explanation than "it's just something we do".
And I remember you laughing at your mum's funeral and I think I even remember you saying that you weren't going to set foot inside a church again afterwards, but I don't remember what it was all about. I wasn't God's friend then either remember.
I'm afraid you've lost me Evo, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Maybe it would make sense if you read all the comments on the previous topic - though that is a mammoth task I know.
All I was basically saying is that currently there is only one teory which deals with the very beginning of how life started and that is God. All the others mentioned deal with things a while after that beginning.
All I was basically saying is that currently there is only one teory which deals with the very beginning of how life started and that is God. All the others mentioned deal with things a while after that beginning.
Well first of all I've never heard God called a theory before now.
Doesn't the Big Bang and Steady State theory deal with the origins of the Universe and subsequently of life on Earth?
I don't think it matters what scientific theory you subscribe to, execept I hope it's plausibe and has reasonable evidence.
There are some things we can't know in a tangible way.
Whatever scientists say on the matter doesn't exclude the possibility that God made it happen.
On the other hand I don't think we need to take the poetry of the opening verses of Genesis as fact in the textbook sense.
There are truths in the poetry but they are not necessarily literal truths anymore than "my love is like a red red rose". The beloved may be fragrant and beautiful but does not have a stem and petals or an excessively ruddy complexion . . . at least we hope not. ;0)
These are just my points Karin.
The Steady State theory has run out of steam and no, the big bang no longer purports to describe the absolute beginning - only how things continued moments after it.
It may have started with the aim of putting itself forward, but has run itself aground (though still useful for its own new purposes).
And so, as the title of the blog suggests, we are back to just one theory.
(Not that God is a theory, only the theory standing that God created.)
Evo said, If you can't look around you and see solid proof of God, that it your issue.
Yet many people do look around and see little or no evidence of God.
Some people believe some Great Force may be behind it all but still struggle to believe in God.
Besides, which god should they believe in? Who is to say the God you believe in is the one and only true God?
Perhaps if Christians were more loving and accepting, better embodiments of the God Jesus gave us glimpes of more people would find themselves able to believe in God?
Isn't part of the problem that those of us who say we believe in God demonstrate so little evidence of our belief by the way we live?
The Steady State theory has run out of steam and no, the big bang no longer purports to describe the absolute beginning - only how things continued moments after it.
Perhaps I'll get the chance to discuss that with hubby tonight, although his field is magnetic resonance, but he tends to keep abreast of goings on in other areas of Physics as well as Science at large.
At the end of the day I don't see any need for a competition between Science and Christianity.
You and I believe in God the Creator. Science tries to explain how creation came about. If they succeed in discovering the methods God used that enhances my faith, if they don't no worries.
The fact that you can look around you at all is evidence enough for God.
But which God etc etc etc is the broader issue which I was broadly alluding to when I mentioned the bit about Him that does require faith.
You are of course right, we do shoulder responsibility for the difficulties people have in knowing God for themselves - but then, not all of it. The individual must ultimately make there mind up seperate from the way they see others behave - and that's what my latest blog is getting at.
But another bit of Romans describes your thought well I think:
"You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Romans 2:20something)
The fact that science has run into a dead end and now freely admits that "actually, before this point in time, all of our best guesses are worthless" enhances my faith no end!
So should we concentrate on our responsiblity, namely living a life that reflects God's love and goodness and leave the rest to the work of God's Spirit and the individuals concerned?
Evo, isn't part of the problem not that Science and Scientists have pretended to have all the answers, but that others have used scientific theories and hunches to suggest that human beings have all the answers? Hubby certainly makes no claim for Science or even Physics having all the answers and I don't think he is unusual amongst his colleagues locally or globally.
By Scientists I mean those at the coalface: those who are hands on and the ones who actually make the discoveries, not those who go on to explain scientific findings to the wider world in easy to understand bite sized chunks.
I would say that we should be open to God's Spirit leading us to do the good He has planned for us but I'm sure it all leads to the same place.
Spot on Karin. And even worse are those that hear the second hand explanations and then get the wrong idea about what is being said.
They can often get a bit of a fright when confronted with reality.
Although my background is in pure physics, I was always on the side of the engineers who get on and use the things that work without really worrying why they do.
so what we are saying here is that we should not question god, and we should do everything in his name because that is what he has planned for us? well im sorry but i tend to question things, i dont just take things as read, so i suppose i could never be a believer because i have the audacity to question things i dont understand. and im sorry but i dont see how a faith, which is only visible to those that believe, could be responsible for the creation of life, because if it is only visible to those that believe then how could it possibly be visible to me, someone that doesnt?
i will enlighten you as to why i laughed at my mums funeral, it started with the fact that the vicar had not even bothered to visit my dad in the time of the greatest grief in his entire life, im sure we would both agree that this should be the time a vicar is most needed if we are talking about loving god, agreed?, then the next thing was the excuses she seemed to be coming out with in her sermon for not visiting, i.e i have one of the biggest parishes in england and it isnt easy to get to see everyone (how long does it take in a car to get from wawne to sutton which is basically the size of her parish? it then went on to the bit about how there were a lot of people there and she obviously had many friends because of the turnout, and she must have a great social life, the only friends that i remember been there were geoff and enid!!! everyone else was family, she had a great social life, seeing as she was virtually house bound!!, all the details she had about the family was done over the telephone, in a quick call to take some notes. but the bit that finished it, was when she said about the family gatherings must have been good with a large family, she said i can just picture it now, all the women gathering in the kitchen, all the men getting together in the snooker room..........how many f*****g houses on bransholme do you know with a snooker room? i lost it at this point and could not keep the giggles in any longer, so like i said that was the beginning of my life as a non believer. and i havent set foot in a church since, the only exceptions to this are when it is a funeral and i attend out of respect to the deceased and not to worship or anything to do with religion.
huh? Don't know how you reach that conclusion. Don't see that I was saying that at all?
I don't see why we should expect an over worked vicar to get around every person in their parish.
Was your dad left entirely on his own? If not, thank God for his provision.
A vicar is not his only method of communication.
You didn't pass comment on the explanation re: infant sin btw, what did you think?
To clarify, God loves questions - it's his speciality. Maybe you are not so far away as you may have thought.
i didnt pass comment because i didnt think i needed to, but here goes, that may be what is meant by that, but if you can clarify it in that way and you are (not having a go here but meaning it in a nice way) a sort of amateur christian, then surely a vicar who has made it his profession should have been able to of come up with that explanation,and not just say its just something we do, not that it would have cut any ice with me cos i still say a baby has no sin, sorry. and as for the vicar been busy, surely if she is doing gods work properly she should go where she is needed, she was happy to take a fee for the funeral so surely she should have spent a little time to find out about the person she was dispatching, and i find that remark rather hurtful, she was there to celebrate the life of a well loved mother and grandmother, and she was just speaking absolute rubbish. i hope you ask god for forgiveness for that last remark and i dont think i will be the only one that feels that way.
I'm afraid there is no such thing as a hierarchy of Christian. You either are one or you're not.
You seem to put rather too much store in the ministry - far more than I do anyway.
What remark was hurtful? I don't follow what was wrong with the last one.
Also, can I clarify that you are saying that babies are perfect and would never do anything wrong unless led astray?
Oh, have you thought that the vicar may well have been exactly where they needed to be.
As you have already observed, we are a large family with a large support base. Perhaps you would have preferred the vicar to cut short the visit to Mr X who had nobody to see for himself. I know what I'd prefer.
Phil said: so what we are saying here is that we should not question god, and we should do everything in his name because that is what he has planned for us? well im sorry but i tend to question things, i dont just take things as read, so i suppose i could never be a believer because i have the audacity to question things i dont understand.
I don't see God having a problem with that. Mostly it's the Bible and particular interpretations of it that need grappling with, but God's big enough to cope with people questioning him and he probably would encourage it. That's how people develope faith, wisdom and understanding.
Some of the Psalms were written by people asking God what he was up to and the Bible records other characters such as Jonah and Jacob who struggled with God in different ways.
If God wanted blind faith he wouldn't have given us the ability to reason. :0)
Sounds like you found the way the vicar acted over your mum's funeral very hurtful, Phil, and understandably so.
My family aren't church goers so the funerals I've been to for my family have been pretty impersonal.
Perhaps the vicar could have done better, but vicars are only human like the rest of us and they can have unreasonably large workloads. On the other hand it does seem that she was a bit out of touch with how some of her parishioners live, but maybe few of them come to her church?
Also some vicars are better at preaching and others are better at things like visiting people in need and knowing what to say. Being ordained doesn't turn people into superman or superwoman.
Perhaps it was a mixture of her being overstretched and funerals not being her strong point and perhaps it's the whole way the church is set up that led to this problem arising.
like i said before, she wasnt too busy to attend the funeral whhen she was claiming a fee for it, but like you say we are all human, so maybe the church also only puts things into priority by how much they are getting paid, and as for evos point of should the vicar have abandoned mr x in favour of my dad, no she shouldnt but she did have over a week to visit my dad, surely she wasnt that overworked, and i dont think vicars work 40 hours a week.
Well I'm glad you agree with that.
It seems to me that you are refusing to believe in God on the basis that a vicar didn't come around to visit?
I know I am wrong to feel like this but when I hear people say that they no longer believe in God because they have suffered some personal inconvenience I just want to shake them and shout, "THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING OF STARVATION, PEOPLE BEING TORTURED BY THEIR OWN FAMILY AND YOU CHOOSE TO GIVE UP ON GOD BECAUSE SOMETHING INSIGNIFICANT AND NORMAL HAPPENED TO YOU!!!! IF YOU WANT MY RESPECT AT LEAST CHOOSE ONE OF THESE REAL REASONS."
But as I say, that is an awful thing for me to say and I apologise.
im glad you consider my mother, and may i add your grandmother dying as "some personal inconvenience" well thank you evo, very christian of you.
sorry i forgot the "insignificant and normal" bit as well, well i wish i had thought of that at the time, silly me to be upset, damn i was silly to get upset at something insignificant, after all we have lots of mothers dont we?
Oh just belt up Phil, stop digging - you are already too far down.
I don't let anyone put words in my mouth.
And shame on you for attempting to use this subject to make another one of your half baked points.
i wasnt the one that used it, like you once said, it came from YOUR keyboard. and what was that? belt up phil, patience of a saint wearing a bit thin?
Then you better point me there or remain forever clotheared.
I think these are happenings in your very own world again.
i hope i have pointed you in the right direction here, it isnt me using such an event to prove another one of my half baked points like i said it came from YOUR keyboard
Evo1 said...
Well I'm glad you agree with that.
It seems to me that you are refusing to believe in God on the basis that a vicar didn't come around to visit?
I know I am wrong to feel like this but when I hear people say that they no longer believe in God because they have suffered some personal inconvenience I just want to shake them and shout, "THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING OF STARVATION, PEOPLE BEING TORTURED BY THEIR OWN FAMILY AND YOU CHOOSE TO GIVE UP ON GOD BECAUSE SOMETHING INSIGNIFICANT AND NORMAL HAPPENED TO YOU!!!! IF YOU WANT MY RESPECT AT LEAST CHOOSE ONE OF THESE REAL REASONS."
finished with that spade yet?
No, you are oing to have to let me in on the secret. How can a vicar coming around to visit be mixed up with someone dying.
Shame on you for even trying!
INSIGNIFICANT AND NORMAL HAPPENED TO YOU. oh you now say it was to do with the vicar not coming around, oh ok so its normal for a vicar not to bother coming to visit a bereaved parishoner, well in my experience everyone i have ever known lose a loved one has had a visit from the clergyman that was going to conduct the funeral.
suffered some personal inconvenience, well im sorry but this comment sounds like it was aimed at the loss of a mother and grandmother, surely the vicar not calling could not be described as us "suffering" some personal inconvenience.
Funny that cos it sounds like it was aimed at a vicar not coming round to me but then I don't have your very strange blinkers on.
I have clarified - I do not expect you to continue with your warped commentary.
And unfortunately vicars do not visit everyone. Believe me when I tell you - and you have good form - you are wrong again.
Post a Comment
<< Home